Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-26 Comment ResponsesGibson Property Rezoning Agency Comment & Response Matrix Rezoning from RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Light Industrial) — PINs 87-3-B, 87-A-16B & 87-A-94 — 244.062 acres Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia Frederick County Department of Planning & Development — M. Tyler Klein, AICP, Senior Planner (June 18, 2026) # Comment Applicant's Response I. Comprehensive Plan Conformance 1 The proposed M1 (Light Industrial) district is silent on potential or restricted uses and on how the proposal would further County policy, the Economic Development Authority’s targeted industries, or the area plan’s envisioned “mix of flexible uses” and “mixed-use industrial office” (MUIO) designation along Route 277. At a minimum, uses that might be noxious, unsafe, or disruptive, and uses generating higher traffic than contemplated in the TIA, should be considered for exclusion. Applicant has revised the proffers to delete M1 by right uses of regional criminal justice, enforcement, and detention facilities, and freestanding fast food and/or any restaurant that includes a drive-through window/food service. The TIA submitted by Applicant’s traffic engineer has contemplated uses as directed by and agreed with the County’s traffic agency, VDOT. Accordingly, it is submitted that the TIA does accurately address traffic impact being generated by this M1 site. 2 Plan policy elements such as “high quality architecture and site design” are absent or under-developed. EIFS specified as a primary building material in Proffer 1.2 is not typically considered high quality, and no building renderings, elevations, or conceptual layouts are provided to evaluate architecture and site layout. Plan conformance is only partially achieved. Acknowledged and will be considered during site plan process once rezoned. 3 Sensitivity should be given to how a future large industrial assembly may impact adjacent sub-planning areas and the rural areas of Clarke County. The Lake Frederick Urban Development Area (Lake Frederick and Madison Farms) is immediately to the south. Enhanced buffering and screening, lower building heights, and increased building setbacks may be appropriate mitigation for noise, odor, vibration, and traffic impacts. Acknowledged and will be considered during site plan process once rezoned. 4 PIN 87-3-A has no future land use designation and is outside the SWSA; it is planned to remain “rural.” A concurrent CPPA request for this parcel did not receive consensus for further study. The referenced property has been removed from the rezoning application. II. Transportation & Traffic Analysis 5 The Plan identifies planned transportation improvements on the property, including a new major collector road and multiuse trail connecting Route 277 to Route 522, multiuse trails along Route 522 and Route 277, and future widening of Route 277. While the collector road right-of-way is proffered, the other planned improvements are missing from the application materials, including the GDP and proffer statement. Applicant has proffered sufficient right-of-way for the dedication of a contemplated future major collector road. The right-of-way is proffered to specifications which are similar to the Madison Farms rezoning for the same potential future major collection road. The right-of-way is of sufficient width for 6 lanes along Route 522, 5’ sidewalk along Route 277, and a 10’ trail on west side of Route 522. 6 The Traffic Impact Study (May 8, 2026) notes that key regional intersections (#1 and #3) continue to fail and, because no transportation improvements are planned, none are proposed as a result of the Gibson development. This is grossly inadequate given long-standing County policy that developments fully mitigate impacts to adjoining transportation infrastructure. Special attention should be paid to improvements warranted at Route 522 and Fairfax Pike/Lord Fairfax Highway (Intersection #3). Improvements to Intersections #1 and #3 are necessitated by existing and background conditions traffic. The TIA has been updated to identify the improvements needed to offset the site’s impact. Specifically, at Fairfax Pike/Warrior Drive (Int. #1), left turn phasing improvements have been identified in the updated TIA to offset the site’s impact to background conditions. At Fairfax Pike/Route 522 (Int. #3), an exclusive EB left turn lane and a 2nd NB left turn lane have been identified as improvements that will offset the site’s impact to background conditions. 7 A Signal Justification Report (SJR) — noted in the TIS for Route 522 (Site Entrances #4 and #5) and the western site entrance on Fairfax Pike/Route 277 (Site Entrance #1) — should be completed during the preliminary comment period and reviewed and approved by VDOT prior to acceptance of the application for public hearings. The approved Madison 277 proffer (REZ #07-25) also contemplates an SJR and potential signal on Route 277; the applicant should coordinate with the Madison 277 owner (Dave Madison) on sharing the cost and installation of a potential signal and on the timing/trigger of that improvement. The Applicant has met with and been coordinating closely with VDOT about the SJR process and timeline for this project since receiving comments. VDOT has concurred that the full SJR review and approval can be deferred to site plan review and approval, given the TIS is updated to include VJuST analysis of alternative/ innovative intersection configurations at the new proposed signalized entrance locations, Int # 6 and Int #9 (VJuST analysis). The revised TIS submission includes this additional analysis and includes a range of intersection configurations for recommendation, subject to a final future SJR review and approval during site plan. It should be clarified that the proposed western entrance on Rt 277 is proposed as aligned with the planned Lake Frederick entrance and no entrance is proposed across from the planned Madison Farm entrance. III. Proffer Statement 8 Provide an “Original Date of Proffers.” Acknowledged. 9 The proffer statement does not contemplate allowed or prohibited uses, the potential impacts to adjoining properties and roadways, or mitigation measures. Applicant has removed allowable uses of regional criminal justice, enforcement, and detention facilities, and freestanding fast food and/or any restaurant that includes a drive-through window/food service from the Property. This is consistent with what has been recently proffered for another approved zoning to M1 in Frederick County. 10 Proffer 2 does not fully address level of service (LOS) failures, traffic impacts, and the planned transportation improvements outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for adjoining roadways. Specifically, the TIS notes turn lanes for points of access to and from Route 522 that are not expressly listed in the proffer statement. See the responses to Comments #6 and 7 above. IV. Other Application Materials & Fee 11 Based on the fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the application fee for this application would be $32,207. Acknowledged. V. Agency Comments 12 Agency comments are attached. Once the application is complete and the fee is paid, it will also need to go to the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) prior to scheduling for public hearing. Consistent with an email dated July 2, 2026, the County confirmed it has received all required agency comments to allow this rezoning to proceed to public hearing. The Applicant appeared before HRAB on August 21, 2026 and acknowledges the comments made during the meeting. Further, this application is on a strict timetable in order to be compliant with the requirements for the VEDP grant which requires all grant- eligible property to be fully zoned (M1 industrial). As such, Applicant respectfully requests this matter be heard by the Frederick County Planning Commission at its hearing on September 2nd and the Board of Supervisors at its hearing on September 23rd. Frederick Water — Eric R. Lawrence, Executive Director (June 12, 2026) # Comment Applicant's Response I. Service Area & Availability 1 Parcels 87-3-B and 87-A-16B are located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), so by county policy water and sewer services are available to access. A 12-inch water main parallels the south side of Route 277. A sanitary sewer force main was recently constructed on and near the project parcels, but it was not sized to accommodate development of the subject properties and may not have capacity to support this development. A parallel force main was designed but not constructed because projected sewer demands did not warrant the additional capacity. Sanitary sewer computations and a force main design will be completed as required to design a facility that can accommodate the proposed development. Preliminary exhibits showing a plan of approach have been circulated to Frederick Water. Further, and as stated above, this property is the subject of an active VEDP grant which, if awarded, will provide funds for infrastructure improvements related to this property. Said infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, public water and sewer improvements. If Frederick Water is noting that its existing facilities may require some upgrades, the VEDP grant award would be most timely and be put to good use to make those required improvements. 2 Parcel 87-3-A is not currently within the SWSA and by county policy may not access public water and sewer. Public water and sewer facilities are not in the vicinity of parcel 87- 3-A. The referenced property has been removed from the rezoning application. II. Impact Analysis Statement 3 The Impact Analysis Statement dated May 27, 2026 is silent on proposed water and sewer demands and on applicant responsibilities. The applicant should provide proposed water and sewer demands and clarify the statement regarding “the effort required by the County” for sanitary sewer. Applicant has attached a report prepared by Bohler, which addresses anticipated water and sewer demands for this property. It should be noted these are anticipatory reports based on assumed buildout and uses. The actual consumption of water and sewer will undoubtedly change and will certainly be adjusted as actual users become known and the industrial property is developed. III. Applicant Responsibilities 4 The applicant must ensure adequate water and sanitary sewer conveyance and treatment system capacity is available to achieve the projected build-out of the project. It is the applicant’s responsibility to fund the design, easement acquisition, and construction of the extensions of water and sewer services necessary to satisfy the proposed demands. The Applicant will complete sanitary and water studies and designs to demonstrate adequate water and sanitary sewer conveyance and treatment system capacity for the proposed development. 5 Sanitary sewer force mains warrant scrutiny during design; an oversized force main with inadequate flows can result in septic conditions, sludge buildup, reduced flow capacity, internal corrosion, cycling fatigue, and odors. The applicant must address its sanitary sewer requirements and solutions once its flow generation is more clearly known. If the appropriate sewer solution benefits a regional service rather than solely the applicant’s properties, a partnership with other benefiting property owners and Frederick Water should be considered. Sanitary sewer computations and a force main design will be completed as required to design a facility that can accommodate the proposed development. Preliminary exhibits showing a plan of approach have been circulated to Frederick Water. IV. Standards & General 6 Water and sanitary sewer improvements are to be constructed in accordance with Frederick Water standards and specifications, and easements will be required for infrastructure dedicated to Frederick Water. These comments are offered without the benefit of the proposed water and sewer demands, and the letter does not guarantee system distribution, collection, or treatment capacity for the development. Water and sewer improvements will be proposed and constructed in accordance with Frederick Water standards and specifications, and easements will be proposed per Frederick Water requirements. Virginia Department of Transportation — VDOT Staunton District (June 10, 2026) # Comment Applicant's Response TIA Review Comments (1st Submission, TIA dated May 8, 2026) 1 The TIA conclusion indicates that the reported LOS and queuing deficiencies at the study intersections are due to existing or background traffic volumes and not the proposed site traffic. Regardless of the responsible party, the intent of the TIA is to provide future traffic conditions and the improvements necessary to mitigate unacceptable conditions. The initial submission does not meet that intent and is therefore incomplete. Revise the analysis and report to present future scenarios that mitigate the reported traffic conditions with the development. Improvements to Intersections #1 and #3 are necessitated by existing and background conditions traffic. The TIA has been updated to identify the improvements needed to offset the site’s impact. Specifically, at Fairfax Pike/Warrior Drive (Int. #1), left turn phasing improvements have been identified in the updated TIA to offset the site’s impact to background conditions. At Fairfax Pike/Route 522 (Int. #3), an exclusive EB left turn lane and a 2nd NB left turn lane have been identified as improvements that will offset the site’s impact to background conditions. 2 The TIA indicates overcapacity conditions in all future-year scenarios. Per TOSAM, overcapacity conditions require microsimulation to evaluate operations and report MOEs. However, if the new mitigated future scenarios (requested above) are no longer overcapacity, the currently reported future unmitigated MOEs will be acceptable. As discussed with VDOT at the 7/13/26 meeting, with the added improvements proposed at Int. #1 and Int. #3, majority of the movements are not overcapacity, and microsimulation is not required. 3 The approved pre-scoping document indicated the westernmost site entrance on Route 277 would align as the 4th leg of the planned Madison Farm development entrance (recommended for signalization). The TIA instead shifted this entrance east to align with the future Lake Frederick entrance on Route 277, with a signal recommendation. This would add two future signals on the Route 277 corridor, which is not desirable on a Minor Arterial connecting I-81 to US 340/522 even if minimum spacing is met. What resulted in the change of the proposed entrance location? The proposed Madison Farms and Lake Frederick entrances on Route 277 presented two potential access locations for the Gibson site’s western parcel. Although the concept plan during scoping initially contemplated alignment with Madison Farm’s entrance, it was subsequently determined that aligning the entrance with Lake Frederick would be preferable, as that development and entrance is further along and the proposed potential signal would provide greater benefit to the wider community including Lake Frederick residents. As noted in the comment, entrance spacing standards would be met. 4 The current analysis does not support the recommended future signals at study intersection 6 (site entrance 1) and study intersection 9 (site entrances 4/5). An SJR must be submitted and approved at both locations for VDOT acceptance of the TIA with these recommendations. Both recommended signal locations should also consider signal coordination in the future build year (including modeling the proposed Madison Farms signal on Route 277 if the entrance cannot be adjusted per the comment above). Per the meetings with VDOT on 7/13/26 and 7/23/26, full SJR review and approval can be deferred to site plan review and approval, given the TIS is updated to include VJuST analysis of alternative/ innovative intersection configurations at the proposed signalized entrance locations, Int # 6 and Int #9 (VJuST analysis). The revised TIS submission includes this additional analysis and includes a range of intersection configurations for recommendation, subject to a final future SJR review and approval during site plan. As requested, under mitigated signalization scenarios, the proposed signal on Rt 277 is shown as coordinated with Madison Farm’s signal in Synchro and the proposed signal on Rt 522 is shown as coordinated with the Rt 522/Rt 277 signal in Synchro. 5 Per the pre-scoping document, while the signalized intersection of US 522 and Maranto Manor Drive is not a study intersection, the signal was to be included in the Synchro modeling as an Affected Traffic Signal. Because US 522 is on the VDOT Arterial Preservation Network, this signal should be included in the modeling alongside the proposed new signal at site entrance #4 (study intersection #9) to ensure proper evaluation. Signal coordination seems likely and may extend north to the signal at Tasker Road. The Maranto Manor Drive signal was not previously included in the Synchro model as it was confirmed with VDOT that it is currently uncoordinated. However, as discussed with VDOT on subsequent calls, it has been added to the existing and future year Synchro networks in the resubmission for thoroughness. The signal is currently uncoordinated but has been changed to coordinated between Maranto Manor Drive and Tasker Drive for all future year analysis. 6 HCM 2000 outputs are reported for the signal at US 522/340/Route 277 instead of HCM 6 due to non-NEMA phasing. Only the phase assignment in the timing plan is non-compliant; adjust it from Phase 3 to Phase 8 to make The Intersection #3 phasing has been updated accordingly to allow HCM 6 to produce results. It is noted that HCM 6 the intersection NEMA compliant, then update the results to HCM 6 throughout the report per TOSAM requirements. requires manual input for RTOR reductions. The RTOR reduction was determined based on HCM 2000’s methodology and has been updated for all signalized study intersections. This is noted as most intersections now show slightly improved results. 7 Update the Executive Summary and Conclusion sections to indicate the reported delay in seconds associated with each level of service, to better communicate the impacts on the listed study intersections, approaches, or movements. As discussed with VDOT, delay in seconds has been added to all LOS F descriptions in the Executive Summary and Conclusions. Frederick County Fire Marshal — Adam Hounshell, Lieutenant/Assistant Fire Marshal (June 16, 2026 — Status: Approved) # Comment Applicant's Response 1 All future development shall comply with the Frederick County Fire Prevention Code and all other applicable codes. Acknowledged, future development will comply with Frederick County Fire Prevention Code and other applicable codes. Frederick County Public Works — J. Wilder (jwilder@fcva.us) # Comment Applicant's Response 1 A comprehensive review shall occur at the time of site plan submission. No additional comments are offered at this time. Acknowledged. Clarke County Department of Planning — Brandon Stidham, Planning Director (June 12, 2026) # Comment Applicant's Response 1 No comments at this time. Staff reserves the opportunity to comment on possible transportation impacts after reviewing VDOT’s comments on this application. VDOT staff has offered to involve Clarke County in their review process. Acknowledged. Virginia Department of Transportation — VDOT Staunton District (August 7, 2026) # Comment Applicant's Response TIA Review Comments (2nd Submission, TIA dated July 30, 2026) 1 Western Parcel Entrance Alignment Requirement – During site plan development, VDOT will expect the proposed entrance serving the western portion of the Gibson Property to be aligned with the Madison Farm entrance located directly opposite on Route 277. This corridor already faces spacing constraints, and aligning these entrances is essential to limiting the number of future major intersections or traffic signals and preserving safe, efficient traffic operations. The applicant has not demonstrated that an entrance cannot be accommodated at this location. Accordingly, VDOT will consider this alignment necessary during the site plan development and review process. Comment acknowledged. It is noted on the Rezoning Plan that entrance locations shown are approximate and to be determined at time of final site plan design. Locations to be in accordance with VDOT spacing requirements. Access points may be added or eliminated subject to VDOT approval at time of site plan. 2 Right-of-Way Dedication Along Route 277 - VDOT recommends that the applicant dedicate sufficient right-of- way along the project frontage to accommodate the ultimate U4D roadway section for Route 277, as identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Securing this right- of-way at the rezoning stage is essential to support long- term corridor improvements. Right-of-way dedication along Route 277 has been included in the proffers. 3 Lack of Transportation Mitigations in Proffer Statement - Based on the proffer statement submitted to VDOT with the application, no transportation improvements or mitigations are being offered by the applicant. The TIS demonstrates significant delays at the intersection of Route 277 and Route 522/340, particularly during peak hours. Under future 2035 background conditions (without the project), the intersection is projected to operate at LOS F/F, with overall intersection delay at 109 seconds in the AM and 161 seconds in the PM. With the development in 2035, intersection overall intersection delay increases to 147 seconds in the AM and 190 seconds in the PM. The TIS provides a mitigated scenario that includes an exclusive eastbound left turn lane and a second northbound left turn lane that improves overall intersection delay to 53 seconds in the AM (LOS D) and 94 seconds in the PM. Given these findings, VDOT cannot support the rezoning application without transportation mitigations that address the documented operational deficiencies. Transportation mitigations at the intersection of Route 277 and Route 522/340 have been included in the proffers, subject to sufficient right-of- way. 4 Entrance Locations, Signalization, and Future Studies – All entrance locations, spacing, and configurations will be determined during the final site plan review process. No Signal Justification Reports (SJRs) have been provided with this rezoning application. The signal warrant analyses included in the TIS are preliminary and do not constitute an approved SJR. VDOT reserves the right to eliminate, relocate, or modify any entrance shown on the Generalized Comment acknowledged. The commitment to perform and submit SJRs during site plan has been included in the proffers. Development Plan (GDP) based on final engineering review, spacing requirements, and corridor operations.